[Crito]

My bet is on Google Glass going the way of the Segway...

...that is to say, ridiculed by the general public, but finding a bit of a niche in certain industries. The police, postal carriers, etc. @cstross did a pretty good job of convincing me that some form of augmented reality would be very useful for the police. There is a real-life push right now to get police wearing cameras too, I think this sort of device could compliment that trend.

[SimHacker]

If Southpark does an episode on Google Glass that's anywhere near as hilarious and insightful as their Segway episode "The Entity" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entity_(South_Park) -- then it's doomed! Matt and Trey's commentary on The Entity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WweVv41qQpc -- "Well, I guess you don't HAVE to do that..." -- Full episode: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s05e11-the-ent...

"IT" can go up to two hundred miles per hour, gets three hundred miles to the gallon, and is an all-around better mode of travel. The only problem is that "IT" is controlled by a quite painful and uncomfortable method; using four "flexi-grip handles" that somewhat resemble erect penises; two held in the hands, one in the mouth, and a fourth handle which is inserted into the anus. It also transpires that the vehicle can be operated with buttons too, making the phallus-like controls an unnecessary discomfort. Garrison invites many important investors such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Yasmine Bleeth to see how "IT" works. Despite this unorthodox control mechanism (which is uncomfortable to the citizens of South Park), "IT" is still considered better than the airlines and Garrison is a smashing success.

[tlrobinson]

I think if someone can succeed at putting similar technology in normal looking glasses it will have a much better chance of success, otherwise I agree.

[Crito]

That would help, but I am not confident that it could be made as socially acceptable as for example smartphones.

People who prioritize utility over fashion are prime candidates though. Even nerds who claim to be all about utility are typically more fashion conscious than they want to admit, but when you are on the job being all about utility stops being a fashion faux pas. Utility belts are perfectly acceptable for people to wear when they are working, but you never see them otherwise (well, maybe the odd cellphone belt-clip..). I think that people who wear utility belts for work are a great target audience for this sort of thing.

I think they should focus on industrial use. That has the potential to be a stable market for them that they can use for widespread testing of hardware and applications. Use police to keep the ball rolling until they figure out a way to get the general public on board.

[_delirium]

> That would help, but I am not confident that it could be made as socially acceptable as for example smartphones.

I wonder if a classic-style cameraless HUD could alleviate some of the social issues while still retaining enough of the functionality. I mean it'd still take a certain kind of person to wear it, but people who wouldn't wear it who are actively angry at / frightened of Google Glass, rather than merely indifferent to it, seem to be so mostly because of the possibility that the person wearing it could be recording them at any time, without outwardly visible signs (while recording someone by holding up your smartphone is typically pretty obvious). The HUD itself doesn't seem to particularly anger people.

On the other hand, if some devices come with cameras and others don't, people with the no-recording versions might still suffer the same stigma, if the average person can't tell at a glance which is which.

[MBCook]

Removing the camera (+mic) would certainly fix the creepiness for me. Even then, it's still a bit of a problem. The person I'm talking to could just be looking at their Google Glass. It provides a new way to be obnoxious and self-centered, which sadly many people will take.

Truthfully, my willpower isn't that great. I might be one of them if I had Google Glass.

[_delirium]

It was definitely a somewhat weird experience the first time I talked to someone who was wearing something vaguely like this. I had a grad-school interview with Thad Starner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thad_Starner) in 2004. He had a DIY eyepiece he wore everywhere, with a chording keyboard slung on one side near his waist. The whole interview was filled with these weird moments of, "so is he making eye contact, or looking at something in his eyepiece?"

It was sort of an uncanny-valley thing where we were having a face-to-face conversation, but I was not quite sure which of the normal face-to-face cues applied. I don't at all mind different kinds of conversations, but to me an IM or IRC chat feel much more comfortable, because you just switch to a completely different interaction mode. Not necessarily less nuanced if it's people who are "fluent" at chat, but different, so it doesn't feel uncanny in the same way. Might be something I'd get used to with more experience, though.

[shliachtx]

Removing the camera (+mic) would certainly fix the creepiness for me - and make the problem you mention in the next sentence worse. Having a screen in front of your eyes 24/7 can only distract people. Having a camera and mic on it enable you to interact with your surroundings; and while not all apps will use them, it changes the focus and center of the device - thereby changing the way people interact with it.

[stormbrew]

Once upon a time if you had a pager you were probably a drug dealer, unless you were obviously a doctor. Social mores change, and so far they have trended towards accepting more and more invasive and distracting gadgets. I don't see any reason to think the line in the sand is here instead of the 10 other places people thought it might be up to now.

I also don't think it's a bad thing, mind you. We're heading into an age of mass surveillance whether we like it or not. If we're going there we may as well go there with defensive, personally controllable (even if not secure), devices to go with it. Who watches the watchers and all that.

[pault]

I'm very excited for the second and third generation oculus rift, or whatever succeeds it. If I can get something with a sunglasses form factor and a front facing camera with "pass through" mode, I'd just wear it all day (while working). For me, the killer app is a virtual desktop where I can arrange a wall of windows around my laptop. I don't own any furniture and tend to bounce around furnished apartments, so being able to have a replacement for multiple 27" monitors that I can fit in my laptop case would be a godsend.

Edit: as long as it has vim bindings. :)

[meowface]

Agreed. I think Oculus Rift will launch a VR revolution. It may be a few more years before it begins to really take off, but it might just turn science fiction into reality.

[dreamfactory]

How hard can it be to just stick them in some aviators? Plenty of people would be after a pair of those. You could be half geek and half Lou Reed circa Street Hassle.

[simonebrunozzi]

Same usual mistake: Google Glass is NOT a proper HUD (Heads Up Display), or a proper form of Augmented Reality. It doesn't project anything on the main vision area, but only on the little screen on the upper right side.

[Crito]

I've used one briefly so I am aware that it is not a HUD, but it could still provide a limited form of augmented reality useful for police. Always displaying the current address, a running list of local reports, etc. With some computer vision backend, it could constantly detect and scan license plates, and display alerts to the wearer when it found stolen vehicles.

There is a lot of stuff you could do with this sort of technology. If proper HUD glasses ever become more practical, you could of course do a lot more (and you would already have officers comfortable with the general concept).

[shliachtx]

...which is its advantage. I doesn't take up your full viewing space, but puts the information right in front of you.

[gress]

That's no advantage at all. A real AR HUD wouldn't need to 'take up your full viewing space' but could place information where it was relevant.

[shliachtx]

What I meant by that was that it doesn't put itself into your line of sight, but when you do want it, it is (very) easily accessible.

[gress]

That's true, but it's not an advantage that it's not a true HUD, since a true HUD could place the information out of your line of sight or within it as appropriate, whereas Glass cannot.

[jfoster]

That's the usual mistake of wearable computing?

[jfoster]

Google will probably abandon it before being content with it only ever being a niche product. I'm not convinced that it (including future iterations) won't become accepted by consumers, though. Everyone is still evaluating a product that is not yet "ready".